1. I believe that it's probably beneficial.
For whom? Certainly not those in areas where the climate is already marginal. "I'm all right, Jack" is your screed?
2. I've read many articles that plausibly (to myself at least) debunk the claim that the earth is warming to a statistically meaningful extent
And these are? You demand proof but supply rumour yourself.
To me, the more plausible explanation is that AGW is counterbalancing a cooling trend,
And it doesn't appear to, does it, else the temperatures would not have gone up. You can check the records yourself.
3. You are conveniently ignoring that the burden of proof that I required of you consisted of four parts,
Nope, you didn't prove that was needed. Prove your accusation that all four are needed.
To these points, I counter
1. significant impact upon global temperature caused by human activities that release CO2,
That is what is in the IPCC reports. If you don't trust them, do this:
a) Get the total annual oil production worldwide.
b) Ditto gas and coal
c) Add them all up
(note: all these are raw data and don't have to be retrieved from the IPCC report).
d) How many tons of Carbon is that?
e) Triple it (CO2 is three atoms)
f) Divide by the surface area of the earth (geography, no climate science needed)
g) This gives you the pressure of the CO2 we produce
h) Compare with the pressure of 280ppm CO2 we had for 10,000 years.
i) come back with your report
You can now see for yourself what human effect there is on the CO2 concentrations without recourse to anything beyond what a 16-year-old will have been taught and can find out independently.
This IS available in the IPCC report, so you're just seeing if they're wrong.
2. that this impact is harmful, (I believe that it is probably a beneficial counter to catastrophic cooling.)
Prove that. You make this statement but have no proof. You demand that when a statement is made, proof is needed. Do so.
3. that their interference will not cause greater harm than good
Define "harm" and "good". Moving the quadrillion infrastructure would be bad, would it not? And if you want to read an economists POV on this, read the Stern Report.
So this one has been answered too. You need to refute the proof.
4. and that people, if informed, are too stupid and evil to address the issue on a voluntary basis.(Cynicism about people is often a projection of one's own character upon others.)
You seem to believe that only those with a vested economic interest in promoting AGW will promote AGW. Are you projecting too?
The problem is that the first-world rich will have to pay NOW to save someone else in the third world LATER. When it comes to "MRR could damage YOUR child" the need for proof of that is irrelevant. Even if it's not known 100%, that's good enough when it concerns YOU or YOUR family NOW.
Yet if it concerns someone else's family, especially in the future, 100% proof isn't quite enough.
So you have me projecting self interest. Seems to exist widely, though. And you project underhanded fraudulent activity to proAGW and are therefore underhanded and fraudulent yourself.